Given the revised contraceptive mandate rules, there are now clear firewalls between religious employers and the contraceptive services their employees shall receive (see previous post). As I put it earlier, it is not like religious organizations are even providing free birth control-- their health insurance company or the federal government is providing it. The fact that religious organizations provide health insurance for their employees is just the hook for third parties to provide their free birth control to their employees.
Here's a question: If any organization with religious conscience objections can be exempt from having to directly (or even indirectly) pay for birth control for their employees, why shouldn't all organizations that offer health insurance, religious organizations included-- like churches-- be covered under the mandate?
The system that is now being proposed essentially has secular health insurers or the government pay for birth control for employees of religious organizations that fall under the new rules. Most people who look at the proposed rules fairly will see that religious organizations are not being imposed upon by this system. Therefore, if the Obama Administration is arguing, I think correctly, that these new rules do no damage to an organization's religious practices, then why shouldn't the government and private health insurers offer free birth control to their employees?
The answer-- perhaps obvious-- is that while this makes sense on a logical level, it would be too much to sell on a rhetorical or symbolic level. Right now, the Obama Administration is very likely in a sweet spot, where a) many, many women are going to get free birth control coverage while b) the Administration looks-- to mainstream voters-- like it has done all it could to accommodate the concerns of religious organizations. If the Administration, on my logic, tried to move the bar further, it would look greedy and arrogant. It would also give religious organizations more fuel. If religious organizations continue to object to the propose regulations as they are now, they are going to lose credibility with the public.
Here's a question: If any organization with religious conscience objections can be exempt from having to directly (or even indirectly) pay for birth control for their employees, why shouldn't all organizations that offer health insurance, religious organizations included-- like churches-- be covered under the mandate?
The system that is now being proposed essentially has secular health insurers or the government pay for birth control for employees of religious organizations that fall under the new rules. Most people who look at the proposed rules fairly will see that religious organizations are not being imposed upon by this system. Therefore, if the Obama Administration is arguing, I think correctly, that these new rules do no damage to an organization's religious practices, then why shouldn't the government and private health insurers offer free birth control to their employees?
The answer-- perhaps obvious-- is that while this makes sense on a logical level, it would be too much to sell on a rhetorical or symbolic level. Right now, the Obama Administration is very likely in a sweet spot, where a) many, many women are going to get free birth control coverage while b) the Administration looks-- to mainstream voters-- like it has done all it could to accommodate the concerns of religious organizations. If the Administration, on my logic, tried to move the bar further, it would look greedy and arrogant. It would also give religious organizations more fuel. If religious organizations continue to object to the propose regulations as they are now, they are going to lose credibility with the public.
Comments